The Tribunal held that goods retained the essential character of wheelchairs despite added toileting facility. It ruled that exemption cannot be denied when mobility remains the primary function.
The Tribunal held that duty demand cannot be sustained without evidence showing how IGCR rules were violated. In absence of proof of improper clearance, the demand and penalty were set aside.
The Tribunal observed disproportionate spending on contractual incentives compared to charity. It directed re-examination of whether such costs served trust objectives. The case highlights scrutiny of administrative expenses.
ITAT Mumbai upheld 12.5% addition on alleged bogus purchases, ruling that only profit element can be taxed since sales were accepted; full disallowance or 25% addition was held excessive and unjustified.
The Tribunal held that insolvency proceedings cannot be avoided when total debt is higher than the arbitral claim. It ruled that undisputed default justified admission under Section 7.
ITAT held that where sales are not disputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only 15% profit element was taxed, reinforcing that tax applies to real income, not gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that unfinished properties classified as work-in-progress cannot be subjected to notional rent under section 23. Since construction was incomplete, the addition was deleted as legally unsustainable.
The Court held that recovery under Section 79 is valid when the assessment has attained finality and dues remain unpaid. It ruled that no prior notice or fresh adjudication is required in such cases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot examine issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without approval. Since total deposits were assessed instead of only demonetization deposits, the addition was invalid and deleted.
The issue involved rejection of a delayed claim in bankruptcy proceedings. The Tribunal held that concealment of material facts by the debtor prevented timely filing. It ruled that such delay could be condoned when sufficiently explained and directed admission of the claim.
